Your Email:

Friend's Email:

Note: (optional)

Subject:

Message: <br /><br /> If you are having trouble reading this email, you may view this article online at: http://www.jweekly.com/18625/full/18625/u-s-jewish-leaders-split-on-iraq-policy/ <br /><br /> <b>U.S. Jewish leaders split on Iraq policy</b> <br /> Friday, October 11, 2002 | by <p>MATTHEW E. BERGER </p> <br /><br /><p>WASHINGTON—Jewish groups are raising concerns about a draft resolution from the umbrella organization of American Jewry expressing support for U.S. actions on Iraq, with one key member even saying it will not sign on.<br /><br /> Yet despite the concerns—which come from both sides of the political aisle—most groups seem willing to sign on to the five-paragraph statement from the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations.<br /><br /> The debate comes as Jewish groups seek to establish a common position on an issue that could have important repercussions for Israel and American Jewry.<br /><br /> A draft of the statement expresses support for President Bush's and Congress' efforts to make Iraq stop developing weapons of mass destruction and to comply with U.N. resolutions and "other standards set forth by the president."<br /><br /> The Conference of Presidents hopes to issue a final statement next week.<br /><br /> The draft reads: "We support the measures necessary to ensure Iraqi disarmament, including the consequences for Iraq if it fails to meet its obligations."<br /><br /> Some Jewish leaders say the resolution is too vague, granting support to Bush without specifying what Jewish groups do or don't support.<br /><br /> Several groups argue that the resolution does not enunciate a preference for nonviolent tactics, the need to build U.N. support for any action and a clear explanation of why military action is needed, steps some Jewish groups have called for.<br /><br /> "It's vague in the bad sense," one Jewish leader said. "It's a blank check for the president to do whatever he sees fit, regardless of what" the U.N. Security Council might decide.<br /><br /> Other groups say the wording is not strong enough, mentioning only "consequences"—rather than an explicit warning of military action—if Iraqi President Saddam Hussein does not meet with U.S. demands.<br /><br /> Many leaders say they will sign on to the resolution despite their concerns. Few, however, were willing to speak for attribution before a final version of the resolution is released.<br /><br /> Malcolm Hoenlein, the Conference of Presidents' executive vice chairman, said he has received several requests for revisions to the resolution and has tried to accommodate them. But the resolution generally has received overwhelming support, he said.<br /><br /> The conference has been criticized in the past for not seeking input from member groups before declaring an opinion on their behalf. This time there will be no vote on the statement, but Hoenlein is seeking unanimity.</p> <p> </p>

Please enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below: